Geocentric Belief

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by StrangerInAStrangeLand, Jul 15, 2015.

  1. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,364
    Is the prime mover a perpetual energy machine or does god use slaves to keep it going?

    Why did I even ask? Of course god can violate the laws of thermodynamics, he's god, duh. What good is it to be god if you can't use cheat codes?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    I asked for reputable references not excuses.
    The FLRW scenario you mention is just another "red herring"by yourself for previous stated reasons. Physicists/cosmologists often use "changes in perspective" to make a particular illustration clearer and sometimes do chose other perspectives when convenient to do so.
    The fact remains that the accepted expanding homegenous isotropic Universe model is what mainstream cosmology operates under along with the BB and GR.
    A reason why such models as the BB expansion, GR and the particle zoo are so powerful and readily accepted is that they compliment each other admirably.
    There is an obvious limitation to shrinking before things go poof!
    And like I said, other than for making some particular illustration clearer the expansion model reigns supreme and is what is generally used. Far closer to the truth and reality that is close to your heart. Still I'm sure you know that, and this is just your silly example of an overly inflated ego and gamesmanship.
    Unintellegent word salad.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    You are wrong?
    Again.....
    The best that can ever be said for the "shrinking ruler" analogy, is that it is an "alternative perspective" albeit faulty, on the accepted standard cosmological model, rather than an "alternative model"
    When you can bring yourself around to admitting that, you will have finally made some headway.
    A "different perspective" depending on convenience, certainly not the accepted picture/model...which you know anyway.
    And no, I certainly do not believe it is helpful in anyway to a layman.
    Although most analogies do have limitations, the limitations with the "shrinking rulers" perspective is quote tight and can only be applied in narrow circles.
    You have questioned a number of issues on mainstream cosmology, GR being one, and that explains why so many have refuted your claims.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    All I see from you is excuses, gamesmanship, preaching and more excuses.
    Again, it [shrinking rulers] is just an alternative hypothesis used on odd occasions for convenience.
    It in no way is accepted as the standard picture, and its severe limitations, make it obviously far inferior to the accepted model.
    In summing......
    [1]We would have blue shift which we don't see of distant galaxies:
    [2]There is obviously a low limitation to how far something can be shrunk:
    [3] It does not explain the gravitationally bound smaller regions of the Universe:
    [4]And finally the shrinking ruler analogy makes no sense when applied with the fact that our Universe/spacetime had a beginning at the BB.
    We cannot talk about shrinking rulers when the Universe started from a point.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    If you don't accept simple arguments, your problem, sorry. The equations are the same, thus, the predictions are the same. Thus, no blue shift, no additional limitations, nothing different at all, only a different perspective of the same thing.
    They don't - there is even no good idea how to combine GR in its standard interpretation with particle theory. They simply all agree with observation - in their own domain.

    LOL, I see you have objected against a "model" I have not talked about, and now you talk yourself about a "model".

    No.
    Let's note: 1.) No argument about physics, why this particular perspective would be better. In comparison, I have given a mathematical argument: The coordinates which correspond to the shrinking rulers picture are mathematically simpler, and are the ones used in the FLRW ansatz, that means, always and by all mainstream scientists doing computations with a homogeneous universe. 2.) An unjustified speculation about mysterious aims I have. The claim that something is bad because the proponent has some questionable aim is, BTW, a classical ad hominem.

    Again, I have not proposed here an "alternative model". It is simply another interpretation of the same model, the same solution of the same Einstein equations. You are wrong, because you fight your own self-invented strawman.
    So what? From a mathematical point of view, the FLRW ansatz is exactly this perspective. The trajectories of the galaxies, however far away, are described by \(x^i(t)=x^i_0, x^0(t)=t\). Instead, the distance measured by rulers between them is proportional to a(t), which increases. Thus, the rulers shrink relative to the coordinates preferred in all computations about the expanding universe ever done, starting with Friedman's solutions.
    "Refuting" my claims is something different. And this does not matter. In this thread, I have not questioned GR, but proposed another interpretation of a known GR solution.
    If I would describe this interpretation to a scientist, he would acknowledge that this is a possible interpretation. Unconvenient, but so what. He would argue that it is impossible to establish by measurement that this picture is the correct one - and I would answer, of course, but the same holds for the expanding universe picture too.
    All of this is completely wrong, because the solution of GR is exactly the same as the standard mainstream one, only described with different words. Thus, the redshift remains a redshift, and that you believe differently simply proves that you don't understand this point. The other points are nonsense for the same reason.

    [3] is also wrong because I have explained it - you have not understood and named in unintelligent word salad, but who cares. Ok, I give it another try. Have you seen the picture http://de.depositphotos.com/2126080/stock-photo-dried-up-cracked-earth.html of dried up earth with cracks? If yes, you will see that there are parts of earth hold together, and between them empty parts. The peaces hold together have a typical size, defined by physics.

    This is quite similar to the global picture of the universe. Galaxy clusters hold together, between them empty parts. Galaxy clusters have a characteristic size, like these pieces of earth. Above are hold together by forces. Full analogy, which explains what you want to explain.

    [4] The beginnig at the BB is anyway a singularity, which is not part of the solution itself. So, the universe has not "started from a point" anyway. The singularity will be, in this picture, an infinite surface. (But note: the solution remains the same - the singularity is, in above variants, not part of the solution, but a singularity.)

    The picture with an infinite surface is, BTW, a much better, less missleading picture, because with this picture it is much easier to understand the horizon problem: that different sources of the background radiation, even if they are not very far away from our point of view (quite small angular distance), have nothing in common in the past without inflation.
     
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    I accept logical arguments. I don't accept pedant that you so often dabble in to add credibility to your own hypothesis.
    I do not accept your questionable claims, but you could supply a link if your ego allows.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Again ignoring the preaching let's get onto the points I have made......
    [1]We would have blue shift which we don't see of distant galaxies:
    [2]There is obviously a low limitation to how far something can be shrunk:
    [3] It does not explain the gravitationally bound smaller regions of the Universe:
    [4]And finally the shrinking ruler analogy makes no sense when applied with the fact that our Universe/spacetime had a beginning at the BB.
    We cannot talk about shrinking rulers when the Universe started from a point.
    Ill add a number [5] DE:
    What are you really on about?
    Is it so ego deflating for you to be challenged by a layperson that you see the need to resort to such childish irrelevancies?
    Let me state it again.
    The shrinking ruler analogy is an alternative analogy that is on the odd occasions used for sake of convenience.
    It only plays a very minor role in cosmology interpretation againt the far more accepted expanding Universe/BB model.
    Your obvious alternative/independent/and sometimes extreme take on science, politics and it appears the world in general, does not fit into what mainstream accept, at best and is totally unacceptable at worst, in many facets.

    PS: You also have an uncompleted claim in the "conspiracy section" re your take on reality and the official version of 9/11.
    Or has labelling it for what it is and in the correct section below your pay grade again?








    Let's note: 1.) No argument about physics, why this particular perspective would be better. In comparison, I have given a mathematical argument: The coordinates which correspond to the shrinking rulers picture are mathematically simpler, and are the ones used in the FLRW ansatz, that means, always and by all mainstream scientists doing computations with a homogeneous universe. 2.) An unjustified speculation about mysterious aims I have. The claim that something is bad because the proponent has some questionable aim is, BTW, a classical ad hominem.


    Again, I have not proposed here an "alternative model". It is simply another interpretation of the same model, the same solution of the same Einstein equations. You are wrong, because you fight your own self-invented strawman.

    So what? From a mathematical point of view, the FLRW ansatz is exactly this perspective. The trajectories of the galaxies, however far away, are described by \(x^i(t)=x^i_0, x^0(t)=t\). Instead, the distance measured by rulers between them is proportional to a(t), which increases. Thus, the rulers shrink relative to the coordinates preferred in all computations about the expanding universe ever done, starting with Friedman's solutions.

    "Refuting" my claims is something different. And this does not matter. In this thread, I have not questioned GR, but proposed another interpretation of a known GR solution.

    If I would describe this interpretation to a scientist, he would acknowledge that this is a possible interpretation. Unconvenient, but so what. He would argue that it is impossible to establish by measurement that this picture is the correct one - and I would answer, of course, but the same holds for the expanding universe picture too.

    All of this is completely wrong, because the solution of GR is exactly the same as the standard mainstream one, only described with different words. Thus, the redshift remains a redshift, and that you believe differently simply proves that you don't understand this point. The other points are nonsense for the same reason.

    [3] is also wrong because I have explained it - you have not understood and named in unintelligent word salad, but who cares. Ok, I give it another try. Have you seen the picture http://de.depositphotos.com/2126080/stock-photo-dried-up-cracked-earth.html of dried up earth with cracks? If yes, you will see that there are parts of earth hold together, and between them empty parts. The peaces hold together have a typical size, defined by physics.

    This is quite similar to the global picture of the universe. Galaxy clusters hold together, between them empty parts. Galaxy clusters have a characteristic size, like these pieces of earth. Above are hold together by forces. Full analogy, which explains what you want to explain.

    [4] The beginnig at the BB is anyway a singularity, which is not part of the solution itself. So, the universe has not "started from a point" anyway. The singularity will be, in this picture, an infinite surface. (But note: the solution remains the same - the singularity is, in above variants, not part of the solution, but a singularity.)

    The picture with an infinite surface is, BTW, a much better, less missleading picture, because with this picture it is much easier to understand the horizon problem: that different sources of the background radiation, even if they are not very far away from our point of view (quite small angular distance), have nothing in common in the past without inflation.[/QUOTE]
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    You see Schmelzer, the sort of talk that you use so often, reflects on you.
    So what? Who cares?
    You claim to be a scientist.
    And really, just because you have "explained it" as you say, does not mean it is correct [what you explain]
    You obviously are a "maverick" in the science world, and it appears every other world including outrageous conspiracies, [9/11] and as a scientist you obviously are able to put up scientific sounding arguments.
    Couple that with the fact that you have a paper alternative to GR, its then patently obvious, that you will and are twisting any argument or debate, to align as close as possible to your hypothesis and your "maverick" science.
    Those are the issues here.

    NB: In Post 25 of mine, I have forgotten to delete from Let's note:1) which belongs to Schmelzer.
     
  10. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    Deleting meaningless repetitions.
    "Dark energy" is a term in the Einstein equations, it influences the solution, but the main logical point remains the same: The shrinking rulers picture is only an interpretation of exactly the same mathematical solution, thus, there will be no difference in any physical, observable prediction.

    It would be helpful if you stop such unbased speculations about my aims, together with name-calling ("childish").
    This nicely illustrates your thinking. "At best" means better than "at worst", but nonetheless bad. So, if something does not fit into what the mainstream thinks, it is IYO bad. If this is supported by good or bad arguments does not matter at all - not mainstream -> bad.

    Indeed, this picture, this interpretation is not the one preferred by the mainstream. But it is only another interpretation of exactly the same solutions, and even the mainstream will tell you that such interpretations are not important, not even physics but metaphysics, so that it does not matter which interpretation you prefer, you can make a personal choice, nobody worries.

    The physical fact is clear, and the same: Relative to the distances between far away galaxies, the distances measured by our local rulers shrink. In other words, relative to the distances measured by our local rulers, the distances between far away galaxies increase. Point. This is what astronomical observation tells us. This relation is described by a function a(t).

    Now you are free to interpret this. One can interpret this assuming that the local rulers remain fixed, and the distances between far away galaxies increase, and you can interpret this as the distances between far away galaxies remain fixed, and the local rulers shrink. Above interpretations cannot be supported by observation, remain metaphysical interpretations. They may become physical in some different, more fundamental theory, but as long as one has to use GR equations as the best approximation, experiments do not give anything here to prefer one of the two interpretations.
    I simply have to acknowledge that I don't know what has happened. But, given that explaining it as accident or natural disaster seems completely off, I believe that some conspiracy has been involved. Who are the conspirators is unknown to me.

    I would like to know your opinion. Do you believe the official version? Then, it contains a conspiracy of Al Qaida, thus, is a conspiracy theory.

    Except if you use Newspeak, where "conspiracy theory" is to be used as namecalling against any theory not accepted by the Authorities (the political "mainstream"), completely independent of the question if the theory really contains claims that some people have conspired or not.

    Let's note: 1.) No argument about physics, why this particular perspective would be better. In comparison, I have given a mathematical argument: The coordinates which correspond to the shrinking rulers picture are mathematically simpler, and are the ones used in the FLRW ansatz, that means, always and by all mainstream scientists doing computations with a homogeneous universe. 2.) An unjustified speculation about mysterious aims I have. The claim that something is bad because the proponent has some questionable aim is, BTW, a classical ad hominem.

    Of course. This is what I have to care about - if it is correct or not. But if you simply start name-calling ("word salad"), this is not an argument that my explanation is wrong. It may show that my explanation has not been presented in a sufficiently simple form - that's why I have made another try to explain the same thing in different words. But in itself there was no argument, thus, nothing to care.
    This would not be an issue in a scientific discussion. You make an issue out of this. You support the mainstream, whatever it claims, don't even care about contradictions (like support for antifascism everywhere and in rhetorics but for fascism in the Ukraine), and hate mavericks.

    The rules of a scientific discussion would be that it does not matter at all if I'm a maverick or a mainstream scientist. We exchange argument about what we are talking. I present an interpretation for a GR solution which has some connection with my alternative theory of gravity? What is the problem? Once I propose it, let's talk about it. What are the differences between this interpretion and the standard one? Are there arguments to prefer one of them?

    You seem to think that some association of this interpretation with my ether theory of gravity is, somehow, an argument against it. What is the logic behind this? (A rhetorical question - I know this logic, from childhood, "yes, this is true, but this could be used by the class enemy to fight communism, thus, we cannot admit this.")
     
  11. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    In my memory, the expanding balloon membrane represents the 3 space dimensions, the radius to the start of the Blow-Begin (BB) --the time dimension; the inside of the balloon the past, the outside the future. The signal we receive climbed out of the past in a spiral along the expanding "film", a surface that was progressively smaller in the past. At any given point we receive images from the past, but send it into the future ,-- at a tangent? Any movement along the curved skin generates a centrifugal force that powers the energetic further expansion? Is not in our diagrams "time" always shown at right angles to space. ?
     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    That's OK, I stand by all the points I have made, with regards to yourself and the agenda you have, and also my simple statement which is all I will submit in this thread in the hope you will focus on that rather than skirting around on irrelevant issues.

    The shrinking ruler analogy is an alternative analogy that is on the odd occasions used for sake of convenience.
    It only plays a very minor role in cosmology interpretations against the far more accepted expanding Universe/BB interpretation/model.




    PS: I have also answered your claim that 9/11 involved a conspiracy question and your stupid interpretation that Al Qaida was the conspiracy in the appropriate section. Ad Hominem? No just the truth.
     
  13. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    If this statement is what you want to focus about, we can finish this, I do not even object because this is IMHO completely irrelevant.

    The other points you have made were simply wrong, but to "stand by them" without even repeating them is, it seems, the most one can expect from you if you have recognized that these claims themself are undefensible.

    The difference between the shrinking rulers picture and the expanding universe picture is only an interpretational one, the solutions are completely identical, the physical predictions, therefore, too. Thus, claims about differences in the physical predictions like a blueshift instead of redshift, are wrong, and wrong in an obvious and indefensible way, which even a layman can understand.
     
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    No totally relevant.
    Let me re-enforce it again, since you are unable to deny it.
    The shrinking ruler analogy is an alternative analogy that is on the odd occasions used for sake of convenience.
    It only plays a very minor role in cosmology interpretations against the far more accepted expanding Universe/BB interpretation/model.



    I stand by my claim because we first observed red shift of distant galaxies that is explained by an expanding Universe/spacetime, which when extrapolated backwards, leads us to the other accepted fact we call the BB, and all fitting in like a hand in a glove with GR.
    Shrinking rulers is an entirely unrealistic fabricated interpretation with very limited applications just as the "flat Earth" also has limited applications confined on Earth.
    An Interpretational one that is far from reality when compared to the more realistic Expanding Universe. And of course it follows logically that the "model" closer to reality [expanding Universe] is far and away superior to the limited interpretation [shrinking rulers]
     
  15. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    Completely wrong, because the shrinking rulers interpretation covers also the whole solution, the whole universe (except the singularity itself), and everything observable. Limitations are your invention and completely unbased.
    You have no justification at all to name this interpretation "more realistic". (Other than your private completely unbased inventions of "limitations".)
     
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Wrong again. I have every justification to see the expanding model as "more realistic"for the reasons already stated, and of course that is the general accepted interpretation of mainstream, certainly not some maverick arguing pedant.
    Further more .the universe had a hot beginning according to BB theory and has been cooling by expansion ever since. In your fabricated scenario the universe is not expanding so your ruler and all other forms of matter should be growing warmer as they contract and we should observe a universal warming of all matter- ruler and all.
    Couple that with gravitationally bound systems that are decoupled from the overall expansion rate, and the "shrinking ruler"interpretation remains totally limited as I have claimed, and similar to the "flat earth"...We use it for convenience of course, but it is far from reality and always will be.
     
  17. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    The reasons you have stated are nonsense, I have given valid conterarguments, you have not even tried to refute the counterarguments, but only repeated your claims.

    The basic counterargument is a quite simple one, namely that in above interpretations exactly the same solution is interpretated, of excactly the same equations, namely the Einstein equations of GR. Thus, all physical predictions are identical in above interpretations.


    No. The equivalence principle, as well as the equations themself, tells that the shrinking of the rulers does not lead to such effects. And, by the way, usual pieces of matter become smaller if the termperature decreases.

    The situation is different if you use external pressure to make them even more smaller, but there is no such external pressure in the shrinking rulers picture. Except in the reverse direction, where, in the very early universe, the rulers (stars) become so big that there is no empty room left, and, after this, cannot become even bigger, no place left - so pressure increases, and as a consequence temperature too. But this is backward in time.
     
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    nO, You have given your agenda laden opinions.
    The shrinking ruler analogy is an alternative analogy that is on the odd occasions used for sake of convenience.
    It only plays a very minor role in cosmology interpretations against the far more accepted expanding Universe/BB interpretation/model.

    One accepted model is used and favoured over the alternative interpretation.
    The other is a highly limited poor analogy
    It's not just shrinking rulers...It's shrinking everything.
    And shrinking/compressing any mass to a higher density increases temperatures. We don't see that.It is a poor analogy


    To use your shrinking ruler analogy, we would need to use external presure from somewhere.The analogy is invalidated...at least very poor limited analogy.
    Spacetime and Universal expansion of course has no mass. We can apply expansion to that, and even accelerated expansion by invoking observation and subsequently DE.
    Again......
    The shrinking ruler analogy is an alternative to the accepted model [universal expansion] that is on the odd occasions used for sake of convenience.
    It only plays a very minor role in cosmology interpretations against the far more accepted expanding Universe/BB model.

     
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Let's add another argument to this bizarre seldom used "fabricated" alternative interpretation of the shrinking rulers/matter.
    Spacetime expands due to whatever momentum it had from the BB, and a DE component that is probably the CC of Einstein fame.
    It is spacetime which is expanding not any massive object that is said to be supposedly shrinking. Mass shrinking creates more problems than it solves.
    While also It could not possibly be spacetime shrinking since we now have evidence for a DE component which would prevent it.
    And any shrinking mass/rulers would need to apply to all mass and cannot logically be accepted without increases in density, despite how anyone likes to dress it up, or make unsupported claims.
    Also I would suggest with the fabricated shrinking interpretation, one would than need to question other shrinking properties like the known physics constants, Planck scale, the speed of light, etc.
    If it didn't apply to the speed of light, as I suggested, we would see blue shifts.
    Again, that's not to say that sometimes the shrinking ruler/matter interpretation may not be a conveniant alternative to use in isolated situations. Just as though we know with 100% certainty that the Earth is round, we can still find a use for "flat Earth" around the garden for instance.
    Also remember that we would also have inflation to explain with "shrinking rulers" which we need to address homogeneity, Isotropy and flatness.
    Expansion quite obviously fits more naturally within the accepted cosmology picture we have today.
     
  20. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    There's is no center regardless how many times you get it wrong.
    Simple explanation
    http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-04/fyi-where-center-universe
     
  21. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003

    Yes, everything which could be used as a ruler. That means everything. This is the same point with clock time, where also everything which can be used as a clock has the same time dilation.

    This is not compressing. And, by the way, take an arbitrary piece of matter and decrease temperature. Except for some exceptions, like water in the region below 4 degrees, it will shrink.


    No. We have the same equations as in GR, we do not have to add any different terms.

    Again, the equations are unchanged. You are inventing something which would matter if one would try something completely different: Namely, to invent a new theory of gravity, which is based on classical thermodynamics, and which would have to give something similar to a big bang using shrinking rulers. But what we discuss here is something different: The equations are known and not questioned, the solution is known and not questioned, the only think which is different in above interpretations is which system of coordinates is preferred.

    In the case of expansion, the corresponding preferred system of coordinates would have different velocities for far away galaxies. In the shrinking rulers picture, the preferred system of coordinates would have far away galaxies at rest. GR philosophy tells us, that this does not matter at all. This is also known as the equivalence principle.

    It is funny that I, a proponent of an ether theory, have to explain the basic principles of mainstream relativity to a defender of mainstream relativity.
    False, there is no such limitation, the shrinking rulers picture works globally.
    Of course, inflation would be also part of the shrinking rulers interpretation of the solution. The solution is the same, the equations are the same, thus, the inflation is also the same, for all observable effects.

    It is, in the shrinking rulers interpretation, an increase in the speed of shrinking.
     
  22. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    Which, assuming you accept the vacuum 'has structure' and is not the totally empty void of pre QFT, implies space also shrinks. How then does one have a theory any different conceptually to standard metric theories? Or, if the rulers are restricted to matter & energy, as I get the impression is so in your theory, is it not the case your interpretation would have objects subject to say a uniform gravitational potential wrt to some external observer (e.g. placed inside a spherical mass shell) - 'shrinking', but not the space between them? [There is a subtle GR issue in that particular situation, but let's go with 'shrinkage' as a generic standard prediction of metric theory] In which case you have a theory differing fundamentally from a usual metric theory.
    [It's understood in FLRW cosmology space is increasing with time - that's not what above is talking about.]
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2015
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    And a faster increase to oblivion and poof!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I see this as somewhat of a joke Schmezer, how you continually avoid what I have put in bold, just so your ego does not have to admit I'm right. :shrug:
    Again.....Everything else is just simple denial, with any reference to support your position.
    The shrinking ruler analogy is an alternative to the accepted model [universal expansion] that is on the odd occasions used for sake of convenience.
    It only plays a very minor role in cosmology interpretations against the far more accepted expanding Universe/BB model.

    Also I would suggest with the fabricated shrinking interpretation, one would than need to question other shrinking properties like the known physics constants, Planck scale, the speed of light, etc.
    If it didn't apply to the speed of light, as I suggested, we would see blue shifts.
    Again, that's not to say that sometimes the shrinking ruler/matter interpretation may not be a conveniant alternative to use in isolated situations. Just as though we know with 100% certainty that the Earth is round, we can still find a use for "flat Earth" around the garden for instance.
    Also remember that we would also have inflation to explain with "shrinking rulers" which we need to address homogeneity, Isotropy and flatness.
    Expansion quite obviously fits more naturally within the accepted cosmology picture we have today.
     

Share This Page